The Australian government has been debating a "gay marriage" bill, and that bill was defeated in the parliament yesterday. No doubt there will be another, and another, until eventually commonsense prevails.
In the course of that debate, an opposition Senator, Corey Bernardi, came up with this little gem:
''It is another chip in the fabric of our social mores,'' he said. ''The time has come to ask, when will it end? If we are prepared to redefine marriage … what is the next step? The next step … is saying three people that love each other should be able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society, or four people. There are even some creepy people out there, who say that it's OK to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step?''
The fall-out, as expected, was very fast - even our bigoted no-hoper Opposition Leader had to cut this guy off at the knees if he was to retain any credibility at all. Senator Bernardi was "forced to resign from the front bench" which is about as much punishment that anyone can do to an elected Senator.
"Senator Bernardi, also sacked from the frontbench by Mr Turnbull when he was opposition leader, has caused controversy in the past by questioning whether human activity was causing climate change; calling for the wearing of the burka to be banned in public, and criticising Islam and multiculturalism."
This guy is a total nutter and a loose cannon - doesn't say much for the party that nominated him to the Senate position, does it?
Originally posted by KewpieThere are several regular posters here who wheel out the sex-with-animals and sex-with-children slippery slopes, time and time again, when ending discrimination against homosexuals gets debated.
The Australian government has been debating a "gay marriage" bill, and that bill was defeated in the parliament yesterday. No doubt there will be another, and another, until eventually commonsense prevails.
In the course of that debate, an opposition Senator, Corey Bernardi, came up with this little gem:
''It is another chip in the fabric of our social ...[text shortened]... esn't say much for the party that nominated him to the Senate position, does it?
It's easy to say there are substitutes for "marriage" and that gays don't need the piece of paper, but it's been brought home to me that that piece of paper MATTERS. When my husband died, his mother insisted on going against his expressed wishes. Only my own piece of paper enabled me, as lawful next of kin, to override her. Later, I was able to benefit from his superannuation arrangements where otherwise I could not have.
Gay couples can form permanent relationships which differ in no material way from those relationships which can be formed between heterosexual couples. Why should there be discrimination in the eyes of the law? I don't believe the religious groups should be involved in the legal part of things, civil marriages have nothing to do with superstition or tradition, they're a legal matter only.
Better parallel for me is 'gay marriage' and plural marriages. If one is going to be allowed, then why not the other?
Of course the better question is why is the government in the marriage business? Why treat married people differently than unmarried? Marriage is a religious relationship. The government is not supposed to have its hooks in religous matters.
Originally posted by EladarMarriage is both a religious relationship and a legal contractual arrangement. Many cultures separate the two. Nonetheless, it is a legal partnership of two people, whatever their sexual orientation, and raising plural marriages in this context is the sort of red herring produced by bigots and morons. That puts you in the same box as our idiot Senator and his "bestiality" argument. No religious group of any persuasion has any right to approve - or reject - civil legal contracts between two consenting adults. What religious groups choose to do in their own systems has nothing to do with the law.
Better parallel for me is 'gay marriage' and plural marriages. If one is going to be allowed, then why not the other?
Of course the better question is why is the government in the marriage business? Why treat married people differently than unmarried? Marriage is a religious relationship. The government is not supposed to have its hooks in religous matters.
Originally posted by EladarSo you have your religious ceremony and after a few happy years your partner dies, Her family want Her buried at sea( as per their tradition) you want her buried in sanctified ground according to your religious traditions, who wins the argument?
Better parallel for me is 'gay marriage' and plural marriages. If one is going to be allowed, then why not the other?
Of course the better question is why is the government in the marriage business? Why treat married people differently than unmarried? Marriage is a religious relationship. The government is not supposed to have its hooks in religous matters.
The argument concerning plural marriage should be based on discrimination suffered by it's adherents now vis a vis heterosexual monogamous marriage rights not some future homosexual monogamous marriage rights.
Originally posted by KewpieYou can't both unless you combine both the Church and the State. A Separation of Church and State dictates that it can't be both.
Marriage is both a religious relationship and a legal contractual arrangement. Many cultures separate the two. Nonetheless, it is a legal partnership of two people, whatever their sexual orientation, and raising plural marriages in this context is the sort of red herring produced by bigots and morons. That puts you in the same box as our idiot Senator and ...[text shortened]... ults. What religious groups choose to do in their own systems has nothing to do with the law.
The question of plural marriages concerns the right of the government to decide what happens among consenting adult. It is the argument for gay marriage and therefore should be applied to all consenting adult relationships.